Evidence Summary
Health Centre Staff Are Satisfied with Librarian-Mediated Search
Services, Especially When Librarians Follow Up
A Review of:
McKeown, S., Konrad, S.-L., McTavish, J., & Boyce, E. (2017). Evaluation
of hospital staff’s perceived quality of librarian-mediated literature
searching services. Journal of the
Medical Library Association, 105(2), 120-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.201
Reviewed by:
Peace Ossom
Williamson
Director for Research Data Services
University of Texas at
Arlington Libraries
Arlington, Texas, United
States of America
Email: peace@uta.edu
Received: 11
Dec. 2017 Accepted: 21 Feb. 2018
2018 Ossom
Williamson. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0 International
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To determine the effects of the professional
designation and communication method on clinical, educational, and research
activities and related users’ reported satisfaction with and perceived quality
of a librarian-mediated literature searching service.
Design – Online survey.
Setting – A large teaching hospital in Ontario, Canada.
Subjects – 237 health sciences centre
staff who were requesting librarian-mediated literature searching over a
one-year period.
Methods – From February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015,
one-third of the health centre staff members
requesting searching services, representing a systematic sample of the user
group, were invited to participate in the survey. The survey centred on
questioning participants on a critical incident, which, according to the
critical incident technique, is an actual event upon which recollections are
made, rather than hypothetical situations. In the case of this study, the
critical incident was the service they received upon requesting literature
searching by a librarian who was blinded concerning the originator of the
request. With a 71% response rate, the researchers received 137 responses to
the survey by health sciences staff.
Participants were
asked how many literature searches they had requested in the previous year, the
reason they requested the service, how they submitted the request, and whether
the librarian followed up for further clarification of their need. They also
reported on the relevance of the results and their method of delivery, along with
their perceptions of the overall quality of the service.
Main Results – The results came from 137 completed surveys,
for a 71% response rate. Physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals
comprised 85% of the responses, at 35%, 27%, and 23% respectively. Scientists,
researchers, research coordinators, and other staff made up the remainder of
responses. Responses indicated frequent search requests, with the average
number of searches being five, and 68% of respondents reported searching for
the information themselves before contacting the library for assistance. Most
searches were for research/publishing (34%) and teaching/training (20%).
Requests were submitted via email (44%), online form (32%), in person (17.5%),
and phone (6.5%), and most respondents rated themselves extremely satisfied
(54%) or very satisfied (42%). Most respondents (72%) reported that the
librarian followed up for further clarification of the request, and staff who
received follow-up rated themselves extremely satisfied at a significantly
higher rate than those who did not (p=0.002). Respondents whose request was
submitted verbally (i.e., by phone or in person), in comparison with those
whose request was submitted by email or online form, rated themselves extremely
satisfied at a significantly higher rate (p=0.004) and rated the quality of
results as excellent at a significantly higher rate (p=0.005).
Conclusion – The need for comprehensive and expert searching when
publishing or completing research and the availability of easy to use
point-of-care resources may be why librarian-mediated literature searching was
used for research and publishing at a rate much higher than for patient care.
In addition, the fact that the institution was also engaged in efforts toward
evidence-based standardization of care and electronic health records during
that year may have also affected results.
While satisfaction
with the service was higher for those communicating verbally with a librarian,
it is unclear whether this was caused by other factors or differences between
staff members who engage in phone or in-person communication and those who
submit forms and online requests. Because following up was correlated with
higher satisfaction, adjustments in service encouraging librarians to follow up
are recommended. Following up in person and via phone may help further.
Commentary
While some studies
have investigated the sources health professionals use for finding information,
little research evaluating users’ views on the features of librarian-mediated
literature searching services exists. The majority of published research that
has explored these services measured the number of individuals utilizing the
service or the response time (Brettle et al., 2011).
Therefore, this article evaluates elements that are understudied. Complementary
to research studying librarians’ perspectives on literature searching services
(Lasserre, 2012; McTavish, 2015), the study
investigated the perspectives of health staff, including the professions of
respondents, the reasons for requests, number of requests submitted, how
requests were submitted, accuracy of results, and respondents’ satisfaction
with the results and the service.
According to criteria
from the critical appraisal tool developed by Glynn (2006), the study was
comprehensive and well-designed, with a number of strengths. The survey went
through a pilot and multi-prong revision process to ensure its quality. The
researchers also used the critical incident technique to determine an
appropriate sample size, and they provided incentives for participation in
order to reduce response bias. Furthermore, the methods were clearly described
and appropriate for the outcomes being measured, the survey questionnaire was
provided in the appendix, and each outcome was measured independently and
relationships between outcomes were measured using chi squared testing, which
explores correlation between variables. The study design also was approved by
the institutional Research Ethics Board. The 71% response rate was also high,
according to standards for social research (Babbie,
2004).
The use of figures
could be stronger. In Figure 1, the bar chart provided displays the primary
purpose of requests, but it is posited by profession, rather than by the
request purpose, and a simplified accompanying chart with totals is not
provided. That made it difficult to compare the various purposes on the whole.
The same is true for Figure 2, which displays the most important aspects of the
search requests by profession. Figure 3 compares the varying ratings of search
results’ quality by how requests were submitted. The purpose is obscured by the
chart because of the drastic difference in number of responses for the various
categories. Pie charts or a 100% stacked column chart would have been more
effective at communicating the differences in perceived quality across mediums.
Social desirability
bias may have affected results as respondents may have provided answers they
thought researchers would like to hear, especially since many of these
respondents have ongoing contact with librarians, as evidenced by their reports
of frequently submitting requests. Also, some responses may have been affected
by the prompt for explanation if respondents chose the negative of two options;
some may have chosen the affirmative for questions like “Were you satisfied
with the layout/format of your search results?” in order to avoid having to
type. It also was not mentioned by researchers whether the searching service
had a cost, a factor which can influence users’ expectations. A consideration
for further study is the inclusion of non-requesters, or staff who did not
submit a request for searching service. Also, in order to further explore the survey
findings, a focus group or targeted interviews with some of the survey
respondents could confirm, refute, or further clarify some of the conclusions
the authors provided in the discussion of results.
This study provides insight
into a number of outcomes. Health sciences librarians may want to consider the
inclusion of following up, additional fields on forms, and other aspects in
their search service workflows. Personal communication through direct contact
should also be explored as a preferred alternative to email for communicating
with users. In addition, the study provides numerous opportunities for
researchers to study librarian-mediated search services, including methods of
follow-up by a librarian and the comparison of the information provided during
verbal and written requests.
References
Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.
Brettle, A., Maden-Jenkins,
M., Anderson, L., McNally, R., Pratchett, T., Tancock,
J., Thornton, D., & Webb, A. (2011). Evaluating clinical librarian
services: A systematic review. Health
Information and Libraries Journal, 28(1), 3-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00925.x
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool
for library and information research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3),
387-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154
Lasserre, K. (2012). Expert searching in health
librarianship: A literature review to identify international issues and
Australian concerns. Health Information
and Libraries Journal, 29(1), 3-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00974.x